WIX XP 99% Efficiency at 21 Microns

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Curtis Newton
re: 99% @ 35 microns. 4WD just responded in another thread with a reply from Wix.

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4600205/Re:_Mobil1_vs._Wix_XP#Post4600205


Originally Posted By: Crobinson16
Forgive my ignorance, what does 99% @ 35 microns equate to , or comparison to other premium filters or there own wix standard filter


Apparently WIX has changed the the efficiency from the "50%" point on the curve to the "99%" point on the curve to make it look better to the consumer. So to answer the question, apparently 99% @ 35 microns equated to 50% @ 20 microns because that is what WIX use to advertise. And if you look at typical efficiency vs particle size curves for oil filter that would come out about right.
 
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
Yep! That means all the other filters will remain a mystery.

Or are even worse, so they don't divulged the info.
 
Originally Posted By: Curtis Newton




Wix XP appears to be taking the OEM approach that flow is about as important as filtering, especially for extended intervals. Curious what the thought process is with regard to that.


Some flow is (a lot) more important than some filtering, but more flow isn't necessarily better, whereas more filtering necessarily is.
 
Last edited:
The Wix XP flows longer before it clogs up than their other offerings, flow isn't the issue I don't believe. Flow is pretty constant. Personally, my opinion is a name brand or OE cellulose synthetic blend filter is the best. I believe the cellulose scrubs oil finer during longer use, and also takes out a little water. So my choice would be the Wix standard or Napa Gold. They haven't shown problems I am aware of. Too much is put on the rapid efficiency test, proven by the fact a Toyota copy filter beat the Fram Ultra in particle removal at the end of an oil change interval in a believable, documented, test run.
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Curtis Newton
re: 99% @ 35 microns. 4WD just responded in another thread with a reply from Wix.

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4600205/Re:_Mobil1_vs._Wix_XP#Post4600205


Originally Posted By: Crobinson16
Forgive my ignorance, what does 99% @ 35 microns equate to , or comparison to other premium filters or there own wix standard filter


Apparently WIX has changed the the efficiency from the "50%" point on the curve to the "99%" point on the curve to make it look better to the consumer. So to answer the question, apparently 99% @ 35 microns equated to 50% @ 20 microns because that is what WIX use to advertise. And if you look at typical efficiency vs particle size curves for oil filter that would come out about right.


Realistically that makes it pretty close to the Fram Extra Guard at three times the cost for 10K Vs the Extra Guard 5K.
 
Originally Posted By: JohnnyJohnson
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Curtis Newton
re: 99% @ 35 microns. 4WD just responded in another thread with a reply from Wix.

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4600205/Re:_Mobil1_vs._Wix_XP#Post4600205


Originally Posted By: Crobinson16
Forgive my ignorance, what does 99% @ 35 microns equate to , or comparison to other premium filters or there own wix standard filter


Apparently WIX has changed the the efficiency from the "50%" point on the curve to the "99%" point on the curve to make it look better to the consumer. So to answer the question, apparently 99% @ 35 microns equated to 50% @ 20 microns because that is what WIX use to advertise. And if you look at typical efficiency vs particle size curves for oil filter that would come out about right.


Realistically that makes it pretty close to the Fram Extra Guard at three times the cost for 10K Vs the Extra Guard 5K.


I’ve cut open both … the Wix XP is another magnitude in design/build quality … I’d run it 10k any day before the cheaper Fram. Having said that … I’m sticking with Fram Ultra until I better understand this XP. Like if 35u/99+20u/50 was actually what they targeted for sound reasons.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: JohnnyJohnson
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Curtis Newton
re: 99% @ 35 microns. 4WD just responded in another thread with a reply from Wix.

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4600205/Re:_Mobil1_vs._Wix_XP#Post4600205


Originally Posted By: Crobinson16
Forgive my ignorance, what does 99% @ 35 microns equate to , or comparison to other premium filters or there own wix standard filter


Apparently WIX has changed the the efficiency from the "50%" point on the curve to the "99%" point on the curve to make it look better to the consumer. So to answer the question, apparently 99% @ 35 microns equated to 50% @ 20 microns because that is what WIX use to advertise. And if you look at typical efficiency vs particle size curves for oil filter that would come out about right.


Realistically that makes it pretty close to the Fram Extra Guard at three times the cost for 10K Vs the Extra Guard 5K.

It may seem "pretty close", but on the filter efficiency scale the difference is pretty large in terms of size and count of particles in the cleaned oil.
 
Originally Posted By: 4WD

I’ve cut open both … the Wix XP is another magnitude in design/build quality … I’d run it 10k any day before the cheaper Fram.


Yes and no - I don't like the poor efficiency numbers, no mater "How better" the construction is.

I'd run a Fram Tough guard long before a Wix XP -
the two do not compare in construction...
But I have run the TG and even though the fiber end-caps look cheap, IT WORKS WELL.

OH WELL, I have already switched everything to the ultra XG line anyway.
 
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Too much is put on the rapid efficiency test, proven by the fact a Toyota copy filter beat the Fram Ultra in particle removal at the end of an oil change interval in a believable, documented, test run.

And on the flip side, there was a documented ISO cleanliness test report posted that showed used oil out of a motorcycle with a wet clutch and using an Ultra filter tested cleaner than the same new oil that he used right of the bottle. Maybe those dang particle counters just can't be trusted
grin2.gif
.
 
You know something 4wd... I wonder what the flow rate is for the Fram Ultra vs the Wix?? Wix has a 9-11 gallons per minute flow rate for the 57356. What is the Fram's?? I know the Mobil 1 oil filter made by Champion Lab is 4-5 gallons per minute. Does the Wix fair amount higher flow rate make up the difference in % at x microns?? However, the regular Wix filter has a 95% @20 microns with the same high flow rate... Maybe that initial 50% @ 20 microns quickly goes up because most particulate is less than 25 microns to begin with in today's motors. When one looks at particulate counts it is very few pieces above 40, some 30-40, a good amount 20-30, and a whole bunch 10-20.
 
Originally Posted By: bbhero
You know something 4wd... I wonder what the flow rate is for the Fram Ultra vs the Wix?? Wix has a 9-11 gallons per minute flow rate for the 57356. What is the Fram's?? I know the Mobil 1 oil filter made by Champion Lab is 4-5 gallons per minute. Does the Wix fair amount higher flow rate make up the difference in % at x microns?? However, the regular Wix filter has a 95% @20 microns with the same high flow rate... Maybe that initial 50% @ 20 microns quickly goes up because most particulate is less than 25 microns to begin with in today's motors. When one looks at particulate counts it is very few pieces above 40, some 30-40, a good amount 20-30, and a whole bunch 10-20.


The Ultra flows very well. Motorking got flow info on the Ultra and passed it on in this thread - LINK.

Wouldn't you want an efficient filter if there was a whole bunch of particles in the 10-20 micron range? Especially since all the engine wear vs particle size papers say it's the particles less than 25 microns that do the most damage?
 
Wix 35 microns, Purolator Boss 40 microns, it could be the Fram Ultra second layer is giving the 20 microns. The others are one layer. But then there is Champ who used to say 98.7% @20 (99%). Don't remember where it was said. There is a reason Fram added the extra layer, wasn't for enjoyment.
 
I had a Fram Ultra fail in that the element was loose in the can and yes I sent it back to Fram but what would the filtering efficiency be then? Which comes around to this again is the most important a filter does is not fail.
 
Too late to add in the previous post , but have we actually seen any benefits in super high mile engines runnnig the high end filters?
 
Originally Posted By: CT8
Too late to add in the previous post , but have we actually seen any benefits in super high mile engines runnnig the high end filters?

Super high mileage engines are probably already worn out.
laugh.gif
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
... Super high mileage engines are probably already worn out.
Humbug! My Mazda (below) went past 606k with no apparent evidence of wearing out any oily bits ('tho it had a few other problems by then). It used basic filters, mostly Purolators (and Kmarts, which were repainted Purolators) and a few Frams, usually replaced every third oil change.

Similarly, by brother's Jetta engine didn't wear out in over 300k, and neither has his Avalon's in over 330k.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: CT8
I had a Fram Ultra fail in that the element was loose in the can and yes I sent it back to Fram but what would the filtering efficiency be then? Which comes around to this again is the most important a filter does is not fail.


I just sent a Fram Ultra to car51 for dissection. At startup, our RX330 made a horrible knocking sound for about three seconds. We have owned the vehicle since new and have never heard that sound before. I went to O'Reilly's and picked up a WIX XP. The Ultra should arrive in car51's mailbox on Wednesday, but I don't know when he will have time to take a look at it. I don't know if the filter is at fault, but figured car51 could take a look.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top